Peace activists detention was unlawful

Protesters today won their High Court battle over a police decision to detain three coachloads of peace activists on their way to a demonstration against the war on Iraq.

The ruling was a victory for about 60 of the 120 passengers. They took legal action after being prevented from attending the vigil at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire in March last year.

They accused Gloucestershire Police of acting unlawfully.

Their lawyers had argued the "unjustified" police action amounted to an abuse of power.

Today Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Harrison, sitting in London, ruled that their detention and forced return to London could not be justified under both common law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

But the protesters failed to gain a ruling that they should have been allowed to attend the demonstration.

Both judges agreed that, even though their subsequent detention was unlawful, the police had been entitled to stop them reaching Fairford because of fears of a breach of the peace.

Three coaches from London were intercepted in a lay-by in Lechlade at 12.50pm, searched and items were seized.

At 2.15pm, the decision was taken to return the coaches to London non-stop under police escort, because of the view taken about preventing violence by hard-core demonstrators.

Michael Fordham, appearing for demonstrator Jane Laporte, from Woodlands Park Road, Tottenham, London N15, contended that both the action of turning away and of forcible return were unlawful.

Lord Justice May said the police were entitled to take preventive measures to avoid breaches of the peace.

It had been impractical for officers to deal with a large number of "unco-operative" people on an individual basis in the lay-by.

The judge said: "I do not consider that the police action in preventing the coaches from proceeding to Fairford was unlawful."

But the detention of the passengers while they were escorted back to London was a breach of their right to liberty under Article 5 of the human rights convention.

Persons detained to prevent a breach of the peace should be released unconditionally "as soon as the immediate apprehension of breach of the peace is past."

Detention beyond that point "will not be justified unless there is an arrest followed by bringing the person arrested before a magistrate".

How long transitory detention without arrest could lawfully last depended on the facts of the individual case - "but it cannot be for long", ruled the judge.

Ms Laporte's enforced return to London on the coach was not lawful because "there was no immediately apprehended breach of the peace by her sufficient to justify even transitory detention".

The judge added: "Detention on the coach for two and a half hours went far beyond anything which could conceivably constitute transitory detention such as I have described."

The "circumstances and length of detention on the coach were wholly disproportionate to the apprehended breach of the peace."

The judge said he appreciated the court's ruling "may cause difficulties for the police in circumstances such as those at Fairford on March 22 20003".

Declaring that the detention on the coaches was not lawful, he ruled that Ms Laporte was entitled to claim damages. Mr Justice Harrison agreed.

Because of the importance of the issues raised, both the demonstrators and the police were given permission to appeal against those parts of today's ruling which went against them.

The inquiry as to how much damages the demonstrators should receive was adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal.

During the recent High Court hearing, Michael Fordham said that the operation at Fairford, which was used by American B-52 bombers, was the largest and most complex police operation ever undertaken by Gloucestershire Police.

The protesters were utterly opposed to the US-led military assault on Iraq and wished to exercise their deeply-held beliefs through peaceful protest.

Mr Fordham said that the police regarded their operation as a great success in achieving their strategic objectives of preventing violence and facilitating peaceful protest.

Lawyers for Gloucestershire Police argued that their officers were not only entitled to take the action they did - they were obliged to.